Re: [vwrap] Status and future of the VWRAP working group

Meadhbh Hamrick <> Tue, 03 May 2011 14:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54585E06B6 for <>; Tue, 3 May 2011 07:14:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WAGasvUiZwYt for <>; Tue, 3 May 2011 07:14:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45E1AE0684 for <>; Tue, 3 May 2011 07:14:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wwa36 with SMTP id 36so89882wwa.13 for <>; Tue, 03 May 2011 07:14:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=NbmbiSGoiLJjMuCeWeKoVxsoYcpM6WJe0pd0Ih4Azqo=; b=jjXK3RBDsULwilq/7+GBLsOmw8/91+hHKcJlBuFk6E6DHSKZtmP/BO8WZJfB7WYKiJ ysl+bROBiMElbEPw8+VPss4KWnX8W5sSa2OppkU5537RyWRJj+xKK2TPAA+HekTwHQgT 8ApUDNDQWaQVd4iF2qYh1IzByrWh0R1ouxCZE=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Gjb9wP70CGihj0sg0qBopdfMgnXOJ/B215KUrtpsWCFRtMH5YlZ+cVPtkjc+uzGjkk LRxBRT0btd3sE1q6s09kEr9iOCxM+tBCeekEGJlgLjy0U7s152LjcuAWzM/lbipQ/LTl QMNV/6qfmL6UavWsPFwjK48TtxH3yWWZweGAY=
Received: by with SMTP id o14mr6909326wee.114.1304432071156; Tue, 03 May 2011 07:14:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 3 May 2011 07:14:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Meadhbh Hamrick <>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 07:14:11 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Dzonatas Sol <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [vwrap] Status and future of the VWRAP working group
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual World Region Agent Protocol - IETF working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 14:14:35 -0000

oh. the reason people layer protocols in general is so we can re-use
the work done by others. like for instance, a lot of the old linden
VWRAP / OGP stuff used REST semantics to access data. we could have
written our own protocol on top of TCP, by why? HTTP had all the bits
we needed. there were several very good implementations already out
there, and firewalls will sometimes pass HTTP when they won't pass UDP
or other TCP protocols.

XMPP is also very interesting due to it's "event stream" semantics.

my hope was to specify a high-level abstract data / interface
description language (LLSD or DSD) and then produce "mappings" for
concretizing abstract data definitions onto several real protocols
(like HTTP, XMPP and RTP.)

though i'm not sure if anyone here is even interested in that anymore.

but the advantage of layering is you can create new services
relatively easily. you just create the abstract description of the new
service, and since you have rules for mapping the abstract service to
a concrete protocol, you're more or less done.

the alternative, embodied by the legacy linden UDP protocol (LLUP) was
to shove a bunch of data into a packet and require the receiver to
just know the structure and type details. this is not a way to produce
resilient products.

meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
@OhMeadhbh * *

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 6:52 AM, Dzonatas Sol <> wrote:
> Meant to add some purpose to that last message: how to see overall current
> trends without the envelope of proprietary or institutionalized mechanisms,
> and identify region-agent transistions in media.
> I did try to scrape people's simulated affinity of virtual worlds (if we
> re-charter); although, sim-usage is easier to explain and "play" with
> real-time concepts.
> My front-end workstation is already encapsulated in 3D with current
> protocols, and I can't grasp why continue to put another system for 3D
> "awesome" simulation within another 3D simulation within the 3D viewer
> within 2D browser in a 2D window in the 3D monitor on a 3D network (with
> various protocols on protocols) in the real 3D world.
> Thanks, I hope this is clearer.  More later....
> On 05/03/2011 12:04 AM, Dzonatas Sol wrote:
>> To further zoom in past to now, I wonder if we should generally revisit &
>> predict IPv4 *.net addresses have code-behind/IL that can be cached or
>> shared as assets, so we can assume to sandbox *.net when in doubt. Assume
>> IPv4 *.com addresses have code-behind/script secured on site or certified
>> for transience. Assume IPv4 *.org addresses are web-fronts, proxies,
>> gateways, and legacy. License issues 'can be resolved', diplomatically, by
>> use of *.org as transition from *.edu "graduation" vitae.
>> For virtualization, the significance here is XML element compression (with
>> pattern kinetics and shared tokenization), which further means something to
>> signal processors (or on the wire|stream|pipeline). Others may already have
>> realized "what if there were already given common XML tokens for each TLD
>> based on above" and even though the XML tag name is the same, the token
>> value may differ for context (and precursorial types). If you follow, the
>> differences in tokens values may act like pre-compressed interop states or
>> less than volatile expect-states.
>> Hmmm....  think I avoided terminology of quantum-jargon, dynamic
>> compilers, and trinary arithmetics in the above.
>> So I came up for a breath of air, and looked at
>> ...then wondered about the viewer in a browser, or browser in a viewer,
>> and reviewed the above ideology again (and fell-back to "frames" possibility
>> and windows "surface" probability).
>> On 04/30/2011 09:45 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>>>> That said, we need to be leading this discussion on consensus that can
>>>> be documented and posted. �And we need to focus on that and accomplish
>>>> it soon, for a vague but near-term value of "soon".
>>> We had a good bit of discussion in early April.  Now that we're at the
>>> end of April, and the discussions seem to have stopped for the last
>>> couple of weeks, I'd like a progress report.  Has there been any work
>>> on coming to consensus on the direction the group wants to take?  Any
>>> progress on consensus for the contents of an intro/overview document?
>>> Barry, as chair
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> vwrap mailing list
> --
> --- ---
> Web Development, Software Engineering, Virtual Reality, Consultant
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list